'The Buddhist View' and 'The Christian View' at the Bedside
Riverside General Hospital's ethics committee is consulted on Mr. S., 74, on day nine of mechanical ventilation following complications of pancreatic cancer. There is no written advance directive. The health care proxy is his eldest son, a Pentecostal pastor, who says, 'We are trusting God for a miracle; we do not remove the breathing machine.' Mr. S.'s daughter, a Theravada Buddhist, says her father 'would not want to be kept like this' and that the family should consult monks at the temple he attended before his conversion. Mr. S. emigrated from Sri Lanka at 30, was raised Buddhist, was baptized at 55 in his son's church, and never formally disaffiliated from the temple. Nursing staff report that during an earlier admission two years ago he told a night nurse, 'Don't let them hook me to machines forever.' The attending physician asks the committee for 'the Buddhist view' and, separately, 'the Christian view' on withdrawing ventilation. Two committee members object that religion should not decide a clinical question.
1. Critique the attending physician's request for 'the Buddhist view' and 'the Christian view.' What is wrong with the framing, and what would a more adequate use of religious information look like?
Read the worked answer
The request presupposes that each tradition issues a single verdict on ventilator withdrawal. Neither does. 'Buddhism' covers Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and dozens of local formations, and within Theravada the relevant considerations differ by country, monastery, and family. Some Buddhist reasoning emphasizes the dying person's mental state and the value of a calm, unagitated death, which can bear either on accepting or on declining aggressive intervention; merit-making by relatives and monastic counsel are often as decisive as doctrine. Christian traditions likewise divide: many classical and modern Christian ethics distinguish ordinary from extraordinary or disproportionate means and permit withdrawing burdensome treatment, while some Pentecostal and other charismatic communities emphasize divine healing and read withdrawal as a failure of faith. Producing 'the Christian view' from the son's position would simply launder his preference as a tradition's teaching.
A more adequate use of religious information is as evidence about this patient and this family, not as a rule for the case. Concretely: ask what Mr. S. himself practiced, said, and requested - not what his traditions permit in the abstract; ask each family member what specifically their conviction requires and what it forbids, which often narrows the dispute to one variable; and treat clergy or monks as consultants who can describe options and reassure relatives, not as arbiters who settle the case.
The objecting committee members are half right: a clinician should not outsource a treatment decision to a religious authority. They are wrong if they conclude religion is irrelevant - it is directly relevant to what the patient would have wanted, which is the actual clinical-ethical question.
2. State what the committee should weigh and in what order, and explain how the conversion and the non-disaffiliation bear on the analysis.
Read the worked answer
Order matters, because different considerations have different authority.
First, the patient's own expressed wishes. The strongest item in the file is his statement to the night nurse, made with capacity, specific to this exact intervention ('machines forever'), and witnessed. It is not a formal directive, but it is the best available evidence of what he would choose, and it should carry more weight than either adult child's theology. The committee should try to corroborate it - other nurses, the primary care record, a close friend.
Second, the proxy's decision, constrained by the standard of substituted judgment. The son is the legally designated decision-maker, but his authority is to represent his father's values, not to apply his own. His statement is framed entirely in the first person plural of his own faith, which is a signal that substituted judgment has not been attempted.
Third, the patient's values and life commitments, which is where the conversion matters. Baptism at 55 is a serious, deliberate act and should not be dismissed as nominal. But conversion is not erasure: he never disaffiliated, kept ties to the temple, and the family's own practices suggest a religious life that was layered rather than replaced. The committee should treat him as a convert with continuing attachments, and should resist both the son's implicit claim to have inherited the father's faith and the daughter's implicit claim to speak for a tradition he had partly left.
Fourth, clinical proportionality - burdens and benefits of continued ventilation. That judgment is medical and belongs to the treating team with the family's input, not to a religious authority.
3. Give three concrete procedural steps for the ethics meeting, each tied to the analysis above.
Read the worked answer
One: separate the factual question from the normative one before anyone argues. The committee's first move is to establish, on the record, what is known about Mr. S.'s own statements and practices - the night nurse's account, any prior conversations, his church attendance and temple attendance, whether he ever named a preference about ventilation. This prevents the meeting from becoming a contest between the two siblings' theologies.
Two: run two short, separate conversations before the joint meeting. With the son, ask the substituted-judgment question explicitly: 'What would your father have said, in his own words, about nine days on a breathing machine?' This distinguishes his own faith from his father's wishes without challenging the faith. With the daughter, ask what her tradition's counsel would concretely require at the bedside and whether the monks she names would be willing to speak with the team - often the answer is that the tradition recommends ritual and presence rather than continued ventilation, which removes religion as an obstacle. Invite a chaplain from each background as a resource, not a decision-maker.
Three: set a time-limited trial with explicit review criteria if the family cannot reach substituted judgment. Specify what clinical improvement would justify continuing, a review date, and what happens if the criteria are not met, including the hospital's process for resolving disagreement with a proxy. Document that the patient's own statement was weighed and why.
The aim is not to overrule the family but to make the patient the subject of the decision rather than the venue for it.